SupplierWiki curates detailed articles to help suppliers win at retail.

Don't let Walmart Post-Audits catch you off guard in 2025. Join Allie and Bekah to learn best practices for preventing and disputing Post Audits.

Prepping for Walmart Audits

Post Audits are preventable and disputable! Join Allie and Bekah to learn how to best prepare for Walmart Post Audits.

Articles

Ready To Ship at KeHE: From EDI 855 to EDI 753 

 serves more than 31,000 natural food, grocery, and specialty stores via its 19 distribution centers. With so many moving parts and players, KeHE relies on electronic communication in the form of electronic data interchange (EDI) to ensure the products they need from suppliers are 

 they need to be there. From order management, to fulfillment, to invoicing, it all runs on EDI transactions. 

In its simplest form (i.e., neither party has any changes), KeHE’s EDI communication with suppliers goes a little something like this: 

The workflow hasn’t always looked like this. KeHE only started requesting the EDI 753 on 

. As a KeHE supplier, getting this workflow 

 right isn’t just important for keeping things running smoothly (including your relationship with KeHE). It’s also important for your margins, as KeHE’s EDI compliance program (and its associated fees) went into effect on July 1, as well. 

KeHE’s New EDI Document Requirements 

It’s not uncommon for distributors to tweak and refine their EDI requirements to improve efficiency and accuracy. On April 9, 2026, KeHE notified suppliers on the 

 portal of new EDI document requirements that would go into effect July 1, 2026.  

, also called the purchase order acknowledgment, is sent from the supplier to KeHE as a formal confirmation that the supplier intends to fulfill the PO request. KeHE suppliers must send an EDI 855 within 48 hours of receiving an EDI 850 from KeHE.  

Prior to the recent update, KeHE required suppliers to send a second EDI 855 ready to ship (RTS) notification to request routing information. As of July 1, 2026, free on board (FOB; also called KeHE Pick UP) suppliers must submit an EDI 753 instead.  

, also called the RTS notice or request for routing instructions, is sent from the supplier to KeHE. Here are the basic steps suppliers must follow: 

KeHE will continue to use the first EDI 855 as normal, and you can also send additional EDI 855 documents if your ability to fill the PO as written changes. 

The April CONNECT Supplier portal announcement outlined that beginning July 1, 2026, all KeHE suppliers must be able to send and receive the following EDI documents: 

KeHE’s EDI Compliance Program also went into effect on July 1. And despite the long list of necessary documents above, the current program explicitly names only two specific EDI transactions so far: 

SPS Commerce is KeHE’s Preferred EDI Provider 

Getting an EDI solution in place is foundational to working with KeHE, and having the 

 EDI solution in place is key to growing and avoiding costly compliance fees.  

And if you do experience invalid chargebacks, 

The EDI 855, or purchase order acknowledgment, is an electronic document sent from the supplier to KeHE in response to a PO. The EDI 855 signals that the supplier intends to fulfill the PO request as written. 

The EDI 753, or ready to ship notification, is an electronic document sent from the supplier to KeHE that requests routing instructions for KeHE Pick Up (FOB) orders. All ready to ship notifications must be submitted via EDI 753. 

What is the effective date for KeHE’s new EDI requirements? 

On July 1, 2026, KeHE stopped accepting a second EDI 855 RTS as a ready to ship notification and began requiring an EDI 753 instead. This is also the date on which KeHE’s EDI Compliance Program goes into effect, which applies fees to noncompliant ASNs (EDI 856s) and invoices (EDI 810s). 

Why did KeHE change its EDI requirements? 

KeHE describes the EDI 753 as an industry standard that improves supply chain efficiency by streamlining and modernizing the routing process for ready to ship orders.  

What Are Tariff Refunds, and Does Your Business Qualify?

 went live on April 20, 2026, and roughly $20 billion in International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff refunds had moved by late May. The Supreme Court ruled in February that these duties were unauthorized, and CBP is now executing the refund process. 

Legal availability and practical eligibility are two different things. Whether you recover anything, and how fast, depends on which category your import entries fall into, not the ruling itself. 

Most coverage of IEEPA tariff refunds has landed in two places: legal alerts written for trade attorneys, and accounting memos written for CFOs. Neither answers the question a supplier ops lead or controller actually asks first: which bucket am I in, and what do I need to find out? 

This article helps to answer that question, rather than focusing on filing and booking. Your customs broker handles the filing, your accountant handles the booking, and your job right now is to figure out where you stand. 

Every import entry on which IEEPA Chapter 99 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) duties were paid falls into one of 3 categories. The bucket each entry lands in determines the process, timeline, and action required on your part. 

Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) Phase 1, launched April 20, 2026, covers two types of entries:  

 estimates Phase 1 covers roughly 63% of all affected entries. 

The filing mechanism is an ACE Secure Data Portal account. The importer of record (IOR) or their licensed customs broker submits a CAPE Declaration as a CSV file listing applicable entry numbers. CBP removes the IEEPA tariff lines, recalculates duties, and issues a consolidated Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment. CBP estimates that unliquidated entries will liquidate 45 days after CAPE Declaration acceptance, with refund payments generally expected 60 to 90 days post-acceptance. 

For entries liquidated between 80 and 180 days ago, Phase 1 is unavailable, but the 180-day statutory protest window under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 is still open. The correct action for entries in this bucket is to file a formal protest using CBP Form 19 with your customs broker or trade counsel. This filing preserves your legal right to a refund while CAPE Phase 2 develops. As 

, the 180-day deadline is non-waivable and runs from the liquidation date, not the entry date or payment date. 

The DOJ's June 2026 appeal targets the court order requiring universal refunds for entries outside the Phase 1 window. Per trade counsel across several advisories, Phase 1 refunds are unaffected, but the appeal adds genuine uncertainty to Phase 2 timelines and to the path for finally liquidated entries. That uncertainty is an argument for filing protective protests sooner rather than waiting to see what Phase 2 will look like. 

Bucket 3: Outside the Recovery Window 

Entries that liquidated more than 180 days ago and for which no protest was filed are outside both current CAPE phases and the protest window. CBP has not detailed what, if any, recovery mechanism will exist for these entries in a future phase. Trade counsel review is appropriate for high-value entries in this category. 

The table below maps the most likely path for each importer profile and the necessary data to gather now. 

Phase 1 is projected to cover 63% of affected entries. The remaining 37% sit in categories with no defined process yet:  

The dollar share covered in Phase 1 may run higher than 63%, since larger-volume imports with higher duty values tend to have more recently liquidated entries. That doesn't help a supplier with a significant portion of their entries in the deferred bucket, though. Filing a Phase 1 CAPE Declaration is not the end of this process for most importers. 

For the 37% with no current path, the situation depends on what CBP builds next, and Phase 2 has no committed launch date. CBP has said it will add functionality in subsequent phases to handle more complex scenarios, but the DOJ appeal adds real uncertainty to when and how Phase 2 will be scoped. Importers waiting passively for Phase 2 without having filed protective protests on their 80-to-180-day entries are taking on risk they may not have priced. 

There are 2 hard deadlines in this process, and both run from specific dates in CBP's records. 

 runs continuously. Phase 1 accepts entries liquidated within the 80 days preceding the CAPE Declaration submission date. An entry liquidated on May 1, 2026, had a Phase 1 window that closed approximately July 20, 2026. Suppliers who haven't yet filed and whose entries are actively liquidating may be approaching or crossing this threshold for specific portions of their inventory right now. 

 under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 runs from the liquidation date for each entry individually. Entries that liquidated in early 2026 are reaching this deadline in mid-to-late 2026. The 

 advises importers to confirm the exact liquidation date for each entry from ACE or their customs broker's records, since no other date governs this window. 

One more operational prerequisite that is separate from both deadlines: as of early April 2026, approximately 6% of eligible importers had completed ACH enrollment, according to pre-launch Wiss reporting. CBP data cited in 

 put roughly $46 billion in refunds stalled for importers who hadn't completed ACH authorization. A filed and accepted CAPE Declaration doesn't move money until ACH enrollment is complete. Get that done before anything else. 

What Data You Need Before Your Broker Can File 

Before your customs broker can submit a CAPE Declaration, and before you can accurately determine which bucket most of your entries fall into, you need to assemble a specific set of records. This is the work your operations team can own. 

 found that rejection issues were often traceable not to the portal itself but to entry data that hadn't been verified before submission. CBP's validation checks whether each entry number exists in ACE, whether at least one dutiable IEEPA Chapter 99 HTS code appears on the entry, and whether the entry number appears in a prior declaration. Rejection messages aren't specific enough to self-diagnose, which makes getting the data right before filing worth considerably more than filing fast. 

Organizations that tracked tariff-period transactions within a connected electronic data interchange (EDI) environment, with advance ship notice (ASN) and invoice records reconciled at the SKU and entry level, are in a better position to build this list accurately. Organizations that absorbed tariff surcharges as manual adjustments outside their core transaction data will spend more time assembling it. 

, attention in finance teams has shifted from "can we file?" to harder questions: how to book an anticipated refund before it's received, how to handle tax treatment of a duty refund spanning multiple fiscal years, and how to reconcile refunds against prior pass-through cost adjustments to retail buyers. 

Ford Motor Co. and General Motors both disclosed IEEPA refund expectations in Q1 2026 earnings calls under different accounting approaches. Accounting treatment is genuinely unsettled across advisors, which is why the Supply Chain Dive piece specifically routes those questions to accountants rather than treating them as operational. 

The filing process belongs with your customs broker, accounting treatment with your accountant, and any judgment calls on protective protests with trade counsel. 

The piece that belongs with your operations team is data readiness: getting your entry list accurate, confirming liquidation status, verifying ACH enrollment, and clarifying IOR identity for any entries with sourcing complexity. That preparation determines how fast you can move when Phase 2 opens, and whether your broker runs into rejections or a clean file. 

Align Your Data Before the Window Closes 

The operational question has shifted from whether tariff refunds are available to whether your organization's data infrastructure can support an accurate filing within the Phase 1 window. 

Organizations with complete, connected EDI records are in the strongest position to file with confidence and recover faster. That means POs, ASNs, and invoices reconciled at the entry level and maintained through a retail supplier network. 

There's a lot to work through here, and it doesn't all fall on one team. 

 connects suppliers, retailers, and logistics providers through a single, integrated network, making it easier to surface the B2B transaction history your broker needs for an accurate CAPE Declaration. Whether your team is reconciling entry data for CAPE filing or preparing for the margin conversations that follow, the SPS Commerce network helps support the work behind the scenes. 

 This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or customs advice. Consult a licensed customs broker or qualified trade counsel for guidance specific to your entries. 

Trading Partner Compliance: What the Data Shows and Why It Matters

Trading partner compliance is one of those metrics supply chain leaders feel confident about, right up until they look at the transaction data. 

Network transaction data across 4,000+ buying organizations tells a consistent story: the cross-industry average for trading partner compliance sits at 42.8%. Even top-quartile performers (organizations doing this better than 75% of their peers) reach only 66.6%. 

Most supply chain leaders estimate their compliance significantly higher than this. The gap between estimate and reality is not a rounding error. It is the gap between a supply chain that performs and one that quietly bleeds cost across operations, finance, merchandising, and technology every quarter. 

What Trading Partner Compliance Measures 

Compliance in this context is the simple average of three participation rates: 

A supplier who consistently sends all three on time is a compliant trading partner. A supplier who sends none, sends them late, incorrectly formatted, or only sometimes, is not. 

Why These Three Transactions Matter 

These three documents are the data foundation for everything downstream: 

When any of these is absent or unreliable, the cost does not stay in a single inbox. It cascades through operations, finance, and IT simultaneously. 

A grocer at 31.6% compliance is running forecasting and replenishment on a data foundation where fewer than one in three supplier interactions generates reliable inputs. For an industry already operating on 

The Gap Between Average and Top Quartile 

The pattern across every segment: a gap of 15 to 26 percentage points separates the average from the top quartile. This gap is not random variance. It reflects deliberate structural choices about how buying organizations manage supplier engagement. 

The conventional diagnosis is that non-compliant suppliers lack capability or willingness. The data does not support this. 

Suppliers who trade on structured networks, where the engagement infrastructure is designed to make compliance the path of least resistance, consistently outperform suppliers trading through proprietary systems: 

The same suppliers, trading with different buyers, produce dramatically different compliance outcomes. That is not a capability story. That is a structure story. 

The Structural Failures That Create Non-Compliance 

The root causes are consistent across organizations: 

Suppliers frequently cannot interpret what they signed. Some organizations now walk new vendors through their own 

 because the documents are not actionable as written. 

Requirement changes fail to reach the right person because the buying organization's own contact records are out of date. 

Most organizations cannot verify that a requirement update was received, understood, and acted on. Communication is one-directional and unconfirmed. 

No accessible path for every supplier type

When compliance requires technical complexity or significant IT investment, smaller suppliers cannot participate. Not because they choose not to, but because there is no 

What High-Performing Organizations Do Differently 

The organizations at the top of the benchmark table are not simply enforcing harder. They are building engagement infrastructure that removes friction from the compliance path. 

What That Infrastructure Looks Like in Practice 

The result is that supplier non-participation rates that are 2.5x lower than proprietary system environments, and blended compliance 36 points above the cross-industry average. 

 as an engagement discipline rather than a compliance hammer are the ones closing this gap. 

What Trading Partner Compliance Means for Your Supply Chain 

Trading partner compliance is not a supplier management problem that sits below the operations roadmap. It is the data foundation that every supply chain investment, whether technology, automation, AI, or forecasting, runs on. 

Organizations that have not measured the gap between what they estimate and what their transaction data shows are carrying a cost they have not yet calculated. That cost shows up in 

, receiving bottlenecks, inventory inaccuracy, and reconciliation overhead. 

Calculate the Cost You Are Carrying Today 

 takes three minutes. It converts your revenue, supplier count, and current compliance level into a measurable operational cost.

Trading partner compliance is shaped by more than individual scorecards or isolated chargebacks. Explore 

From Compliance to Partnership

 for a closer look at the maturity models, underlying causes of performance gaps, and operating practices that distinguish high-performing trading partner networks.

Lieferantenbereitschaft bedeutet nicht Systembereitschaft: Die Lücke, die ERP-Migrationen zum Scheitern bringt

• Warum Standard-Checklisten für die ERP-Bereitschaft die Lieferantendimension übersehen

• Wie ein lieferanteneinschließendes Bereitschafts-Framework in der Praxis aussieht

• Wie Sie einen Go/No-Go-Standard definieren, der das gesamte Handelspartnernetzwerk berücksichtigt

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

ERP-Migrationen (Enterprise Resource Planning) sind teuer, störend und mit hohem Risiko verbunden. Deshalb investieren Unternehmen enorme Energie in die Definition, wie „bereit“ vor dem Go-Live aussieht. Was die meisten Bereitschafts-Checklisten jedoch nicht
erfassen, ist, ob das Lieferantennetzwerk in der Lage ist, mit dem neuen System zu arbeiten.

Genau dort scheitern Migrationen tatsächlich: in den Wochen danach, wenn lieferantenbedingte Ausnahmefälle in die Ticket-Warteschlangen von Lager, Finanzabteilung und IT kaskadieren. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt gilt das Migrationsprojekt bereits offiziell als abgeschlossen, und die Fehler wirken wie operative Probleme. Der Grund ist
meist derselbe: Die Migration hat die Systemintegrationstests abgeschlossen, die bestätigen, dass die Verbindungen zwischen den Systemen funktionieren, aber nie die Geschäftsprozesstests, die bestätigt hätten, dass reale Supply-Chain-Transaktionen durchgängig korrekt ablaufen.

Eine ehrlichere Definition von Bereitschaft berücksichtigt das Gesamtbild: nicht nur, ob das System intern funktioniert, sondern ob Ihre Handelspartner vom ersten Tag an zuverlässig
damit arbeiten können. Dieser Standard, den man als ERP-Survivability bezeichnen kann, unterscheidet eine Migration, die technisch erfolgreich war, von einer, die sich tatsächlich langfristig bewährt hat.

Was ERP-Bereitschaft tatsächlich misst und was nicht

Für die meisten Einzelhändler ist das ERP das Rückgrat eines vernetzten Systemstapels, der in der Regel Auftragsmanagement-Software (OMS), Lagerverwaltungssoftware (WMS), EDI und die verbindenden Integrationen umfasst. Wenn dieser Stapel gut funktioniert, koordiniert er Einkauf, Fulfillment, Bestand und Finanzen im gesamten Betrieb,
sowohl für den Einzelhändler als auch, in der Folge, für jeden Lieferanten, der mit ihm Geschäfte abwickelt.

Weil dieser Stapel so breit angelegt ist, sind ERP-Migrations-Checklisten in der Regel sehr ausführlich. Systemkonfiguration, Integrationstests, Datenmigration, Cutover-Planung und die interne Nutzerakzeptanz: All diese Bereiche müssen doppelt geprüft werden, um sicherzustellen, dass sie wie vorgesehen funktionieren. Eine Migration, die einen dieser Punkte auslässt, riskiert Probleme, und die Checklisten existieren aus gutem Grund.

Die strukturelle Lücke besteht darin, dass die Checklisten an der Grenze der Systeme des Einzelhändlers enden. Sie messen nicht, wo die Verantwortung der Lieferanten beginnt, wo die Systemdurchsetzung des Einzelhändlers greift, oder ob das Lieferantennetzwerk
darauf vorbereitet wurde, die Anforderungen der neuen Umgebung zu erfüllen. Diese Verantwortungsgrenze, wer wofür zuständig ist und was passiert, wenn ein Lieferant den Erwartungen des neuen Systems nicht gerecht wird, taucht auf einer Migrations-Checkliste meist gar nicht erst auf.

Das Ergebnis ist vorhersehbar: Ein Einzelhändler kann jeden Punkt einer Standard-Checkliste erfüllen und trotzdem mit einem Handelspartner live gehen, der auf eine Änderung der Spielregeln nicht vorbereitet ist.

Die Lieferantenlücke: Wo sie entsteht und was sie kostet

Die Fehlerbilder sind vorhersehbar, sobald man weiß, wonach man suchen muss:

• Lieferanten, die EDI-Dokumente weiterhin nach alten Spezifikationen zuordnen, weil ihnen niemand mitgeteilt hat, dass die neuen bereits live sind

• DESADV-Formate, die den neuen WMS-Validierungsregeln nicht entsprechen und dadurch Ausnahmefälle am Wareneingang verursachen

• Artikel- und EAN/GTIN-Daten, die nicht mit dem neuen Artikelstamm übereinstimmen und dadurch den PO-Abgleich weiter unten in der Kette stören

Besonders kostspielig ist, dass diese Probleme zunächst nicht auf den ERP-Dashboards sichtbar sind. Bis die Fehler auf Systemebene sichtbar werden, sind sie bereits zu operativen Problemen geworden, und das Migrationsprojekt ist abgeschlossen.

Wenn die Bereitschaft der Lieferanten als Nebensache behandelt wird, enden hochqualifizierte IT-Mitarbeiter und Integrationsspezialisten damit, Streitigkeiten mit
Lieferanten zu vermitteln. Das ist eine teure Kapazitätanpassung, und sie summiert sich, je länger die Ausnahmefälle ungelöst bleiben.

Außerdem untergräbt dies die allgemeine wirtschaftliche Rechtfertigung für die Migration an sich. Viele ERP-Erneuerungen sind an Analytics- oder KI-Initiativen gekoppelt, Investitionen, die voraussetzen, dass saubere, zugängliche und vertrauenswürdige Daten durch das neue System fließen. Dieses Fundament bricht sofort, wenn die Lieferantenlücke beim Start noch besteht. Die KI-Initiative ist nur so gut wie die Lieferantendaten, die sie speisen, und lieferantenbedingte Ausnahmefälle verfälschen diese Daten von Anfang an.

Diese Probleme sehen wie Lieferantenprobleme, Betriebsprobleme und Finanzprobleme aus. Doch sie treten erst in den Wochen nach dem Go-Live auf, wenn das Zeitfenster, sie unauffällig zu beheben, bereits geschlossen ist.

Warum die Lieferantenbereitschaft nachrangig behandelt wird

Lieferanten-Onboarding, Dokumenten-Compliance und EDI-Support liegen in der Regel bei anderen Teams als denen, die das ERP-Projekt leiten. Sie stehen nicht im offiziellen Umfang der Migration, berichten nicht an denselben Projektleiter und werden nicht anhand
derselben Meilensteine verfolgt. Deshalb werden sie als Folgearbeit eingeplant, als etwas, das nach dem Go-Live aufgeräumt wird, sobald die eigentliche Migration abgeschlossen ist.

Die Annahme hinter dieser Reihenfolge ist, dass etwaige Ausfälle auf Lieferantenseite isoliert und beherrschbar bleiben. In der Praxis kaskadieren sie. Ein Lieferant, der falsch
formatierte DESADV's versendet, verursacht Ausnahmefälle im gesamten Wareneingang eines Verteilzentrums. Multipliziert man das über die gesamte Lieferantenbasis, während die Teams bereits stark ausgelastet sind und das System noch stabilisiert wird, wächst das Risiko schnell.

Das tiefere Problem ist, dass das Aufschieben der Lieferantenbereitschaft ein Vetorisiko schafft. Wenn die Lieferantenebene bis spät im Projektzyklus außer Betracht bleibt, tauchen Probleme, die während der Planung hätten gelöst werden können, stattdessen im
ungünstigsten Moment als nicht mehr umkehrbare technische Risiken auf. An diesem Punkt muss der CIO entscheiden: das Projekt verzögern oder Ausfälle in Kauf nehmen, deren Beseitigung Monate dauern wird.

Wie ein lieferanteninklusives Bereitschafts-Framework aussieht

Bereitschaft neu zu definieren bedeutet, Kriterien auf Lieferantenseite in dieselbe Checkliste wie die internen Meilensteine aufzunehmen. Die einzelnen Bestandteile sind nicht kompliziert, müssen aber ausdrücklich eingeplant werden:

Zielvorgaben für den Abschluss des Lieferanten-Onboardings 

vor der Umstellung, mit ausreichend Vorlaufzeit für Tests und Nachbesserung.

 anhand der Spezifikationen des neuen Systems, um vor dem Go-Live zu bestätigen, dass Lieferanten die richtigen EDI-Versionen und -Formate verwenden.

, die über reine Konnektivitätsprüfungen hinausgehen und vollständige Supply-Chain-Workflows unter realen Bedingungen verifizieren (zum Beispiel tatsächliche Bestellungen, DESADVs und Rechnungen, die durchgängig gegen die neue Umgebung verarbeitet werden).

, die Lieferantentransaktionstests während der Parallelphase einschließt, damit Fehler vor der Umstellung sichtbar werden und nicht erst danach.

Im Voraus definierte Protokolle für den Umgang mit Ausnahmefällen

, mit klarer Zuständigkeit dafür, wer Probleme auf Lieferantenseite löst und wie.

, der direkt an den Umstellungszeitplan gekoppelt ist, damit Handelspartner wissen, was sich wann ändert und was von ihnen erwartet wird.

verdient hier besondere Aufmerksamkeit. Saubere, zugängliche Lieferantendaten (korrekte Artikeldatensätze, aktuelle Handelspartnerprofile, validierte EDI-Zuordnungen) sind eine Voraussetzung dafür, dass das neue System korrekt funktioniert. Sie bilden zudem die Grundlage für jede Analytik, die mit der Migration verknüpft ist. Wenn diese Daten beim Start nicht vertrauenswürdig sind, sind es die darauf aufbauenden Investitionen ebenfalls nicht.

Ein ehrlicherer Go/No-Go-Standard stellt andere Fragen: Können Ihre Lieferanten Bestellungen bestätigen, konforme DESADVs senden und korrekte Rechnungen gegen die neue Umgebung einreichen, und zwar vom ersten Tag an? Ist die Antwort ungewiss, ist
die Migration nicht bereit, unabhängig davon, was die interne Checkliste aussagt.

Der Wert des ERP als Systemgrundlage hängt vollständig von der Qualität der Daten ab, die in es einfließen. Lieferantenbedingte Ausnahmefälle verfälschen diese Grundlage,
untergraben das Reporting und erodieren die Datenbasis, auf der Analytics- und KI-Initiativen aufbauen.

Es gibt einen praktischen Test dafür, ob ein Netzwerk tatsächlich bereit ist: 

Hat die IT Kapazität für Modernisierungsprojekte, oder wird sie weiterhin von Lieferantenausnahmen
aufgezehrt?

Ein System ist nicht bereit, wenn der CIO um zwei Uhr morgens wegen eines Problems angerufen wird, das ein Lieferant drei Tage zuvor verursacht hat. Das ist die Lieferantenlücke, weiterhin offen, nur von außen schwerer zu erkennen.

Gehen Sie nicht mit einer schließbaren Lücke live

SPS Commerce bietet vorgefertigte EDI-Integrationen für die ERP-, OMS- und WMS-Systeme, die bereits Teil Ihres Systemstapels sind, darunter SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics, NetSuite und weitere, sodass Lieferantentransaktionen vom ersten Tag an gegen Ihre neue Umgebung validiert und automatisiert werden.

Wenn Sie sich mitten in einer ERP-Migration befinden und die Lieferantenbereitschaftslücke vor der Umstellung schließen möchten,

What Is Working Capital and How Does It Affect Cash Flow? 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

Every growing business reaches a point where sales are increasing, customers are placing larger orders, and new opportunities seem to appear every week. On paper, everything looks like it's headed in the right direction.  

Ironically, that's often when cash becomes the tightest. As orders grow, so do inventory purchases, payroll, freight costs, and supplier invoices, while customer payments may still be weeks or months away. Suppliers need to be paid. Payroll is due. Inventory has to be replenished before the next purchase orders arrive. Meanwhile, it seems the largest retail customer isn't going to pay its invoice for another 60 days. 

The business is growing and turning a profit, yet the business’ actual bank account feels like it's perpetually running on empty. This is one of the most common financial challenges businesses face as they grow, and it's often tied to one thing: working capital. 

It's a challenge shared by companies of every size. According to 

 the 1,000 largest publicly traded nonfinancial U.S. companies still have $1.7 trillion tied up in excess working capital, including $600 billion in accounts receivable alone. The findings highlight how inventory, receivables, and payment timing continue to constrain liquidity, even for large, established organizations.  

Working capital is the money available to keep your business operating between the time you pay your expenses and the time your customers pay you. When managed well, it helps businesses purchase inventory, fulfill retailer orders, cover operating expenses, and invest in growth without putting unnecessary pressure on 

For suppliers, working capital becomes even more critical as retail relationships expand. Larger retailers often negotiate longer payment terms, require higher inventory levels, and expect suppliers to scale quickly during promotions or seasonal demand. Those opportunities can increase revenue, but they can also put serious pressure on available cash. 

Understanding how working capital works and knowing which financial tools are available when cash gets tight can help businesses keep growing without sacrificing financial stability. 

How Working Capital Supports Day-to-Day Operations 

Working capital measures the short-term financial resources a business has available to operate. It's the difference between current assets and current liabilities. Think of it as the money that keeps businesses moving between purchases, production, shipping, invoicing, and payment. 

 are resources that can typically be converted to cash within one year: 

 are financial obligations due within the next year, including: 

The formula is: current assets − current liabilities = working capital

Alt text: Working capital formula: current assets, including cash, accounts receivable and inventory, minus current liabilities, including accounts payable and short-term obligations, equals working capital.

Working Capital, Current Assets, Current Liabilities.png

Positive working capital generally means a business has enough liquidity to pay bills, purchase inventory, and keep operating. Negative working capital can signal trouble meeting short-term obligations without additional financing or improved cash flow management. 

Working capital and cash flow are closely related, but they aren't the same thing. 

Working capital is a snapshot of your company's short-term financial position at a specific moment. Cash flow measures how money moves into and out of your business over time. 

A company can have healthy working capital while still experiencing cash flow challenges. Consider a supplier that has recently landed several large retail accounts. Sales are up, production is ramping, and inventory is growing to support bigger purchase orders — but retailers are paying on 60- or 90-day terms. 

On paper, the business looks stronger than ever. In reality, most of its money is tied up in products sitting in warehouses or invoices waiting to be paid. This is why many growing businesses ask: "If sales are up, why does it always feel like we're short on cash?" 

Profit and cash are not the same thing. A business can report strong profits while still struggling to replenish inventory, or cover payroll because those profits haven't yet converted into available cash. 

Managing the gap between when cash leaves the business and when it returns is one of the primary goals of working capital management. 

Why Growing Retail Suppliers Still Run Short on Cash 

In many cases, working capital challenges are the natural result of how retail supply chains operate. 

Consider what happens when a supplier lands a new retail customer. Inventory often has to be purchased weeks before products ship. Manufacturing, labor, packaging, freight, and compliance costs are paid upfront. Once the order is delivered, the supplier sends an invoice but payment may not arrive for 60 or even 90 days. 

During that time, cash remains tied up in inventory and unpaid invoices while new purchase orders continue to arrive. 

Financial professionals sometimes refer to this as the 

: the time between spending money to produce goods and collecting payment from customers. The longer that cycle lasts, the more working capital a business needs to keep operating. 

For retail suppliers, several factors can extend that cycle: 

This is also why positive working capital doesn't always mean a business has cash readily available. A company may appear financially healthy on paper while much of its money is tied up in inventory sitting in warehouses or invoices that haven't yet been paid. 

Understanding where cash becomes tied up helps businesses choose the right solution, whether that's improving inventory planning, negotiating payment terms, recovering deductions, or using financing products to bridge temporary cash flow gaps. 

How Do Businesses Improve Working Capital? 

Healthy working capital management focuses on shortening the time between spending money and getting it back. Businesses often improve working capital by: 

No single approach works for every business. The right strategy depends on your industry, customer relationships, inventory requirements, and growth plans. 

When operational improvements alone aren't enough, 

 can provide additional flexibility. The four most common options each solve a different cash flow challenge. 

A business line of credit gives you access to a set amount of funds to borrow as needed rather than all at once. Instead of taking out a full loan upfront, you withdraw only what you need and pay interest on that amount. This makes lines of credit well-suited for managing short-term or unexpected expenses, such as covering a gap between customer payments, handling a temporary inventory increase, or smoothing out seasonal fluctuations. 

A short-term loan provides a lump sum upfront with a fixed repayment schedule. These work best when you know exactly how much funding you need for a planned investment, like purchasing inventory ahead of a seasonal promotion, investing in equipment, or expanding warehouse capacity. Because repayment terms are set in advance, they offer predictability for projects with defined costs. 

 is one of the oldest forms of business financing. Rather than requiring immediate payment, suppliers allow customers to purchase goods and pay later under agreed terms — net 30, 60, or 90, for example. For growing businesses, negotiating favorable 

 can meaningfully improve working capital without taking on additional debt. 

 allows businesses to access funds tied up in unpaid customer invoices instead of waiting weeks (or months) for payment. Financing is secured against invoices already issued, not future sales projections. 

For example, imagine you're a supplier that's shipped a larger order to a retailer on 90-day payment terms. You've already paid for manufacturing, labor, packaging, and freight, but payment is three months away. Invoice financing lets you unlock a portion of that invoice value now, giving you the liquidity to keep operating and fulfill new orders without waiting on the retailer's payment cycle. 

Choosing the Right Working Capital Solution 

The best option depends on why your business needs additional working capital. 

Financing products work best alongside strong operational habits. Improving inventory management, forecasting demand accurately, invoicing promptly, and 

 quickly all strengthen working capital over time. Ultimately, working capital management is about giving your business the flexibility to operate, respond to new opportunities, and grow even when payments don't align with expenses. 

Articles

SupplierWiki curates detailed articles to help suppliers win at retail.

Prepping for Walmart Audits

Overview

Articles